[Open-access] german docs on open access

Fri May 4 13:55:34 UTC 2012

As long as it is made clear that a pub is CC-BY or @ccess the only
difference between green and gold is in fact  that with green scientists
hold the power in their own hands, which I think is to be preferred.
For me the discussion about implicit and explicit freedom for reading,
using and reusing is not trivial, open access as such is not clear and that
is not good.

Tom

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> Yes.  As I said in a comment on the Nature News article, the only
> concrete thing you lose by using a Green OA publication is the
> publisher's official page-numbers.  Which is not such a big price to
> pay, and one that will become even less of an issue when we all start
> using section and subsection numbers, like computer scientists do.
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
> On 4 May 2012 14:38, Klaus Graf <klausgraf at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I agree. You can have CC-BY with green OA and "All rights reserved"
> > with gold. Green has a format problem because most scholars doens'nt
> > want cite final drafts instead of publisher's pdf.
> >
> > Klaus Graf
> >
> > 2012/5/4 Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com>:
> >> On 4 May 2012 14:26, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> My objection to Green is exactly what Peter says, it is unclear about
> >>> restrictions.
> >>
> >> Well, let's be clear ourselves.  There is nothing about Green that
> >> means it has to be unclear about restricts; and conversely there is
> >> nothing about Gold that means it does not.  For example, one of my
> >> favourite palaeontology journals, Acta Palaeontologica Polonica is
> >> free to read (and free to authors, but that's beside the point).  But
> >> it doesn't specify what licence the content is made available under.
> >>
> >> So implicit vs. explicit, like gratis vs. libre, is orthogonal to
> >> green vs. gold.  And while we would all agree that explicit is better
> >> than implicit and libre is better than gratis, I am still not seeing
> >> an *intrinsic* reason for strongly preferring green over gold.
> >>
> >> Of course it may well be the case that green is more often implicit
> >> about terms than gold is; and that would certainly be something to fix
> >> about those specific green repositories.  But it's not the fault of
> >> green itself.  Correlation does not imply causality.
> >>
> >> -- Mike.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> And often repository papers are CC-BY-NC or no license
> >>> Also Gold is not per definition good, because there the only sure
> thing is
> >>> the source (publisher) and not open accessness.Gold can be free and
> >>> unrestricted but also free and somewhat restricted.  In fact all the
> >>> colours, green, gold, yellow,blue and flavours gratis and libre are not
> >>> sufficient for the kind of BOAI Open Access that is needed for open
> science.
> >>> Therefore still the case for @ccess.
> >>>
> >>> TOM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 4 May 2012 13:06, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> > Mike,
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > OK, I will do that as soon as I can find the time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Appreciated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > BTW I read the nature blog comment series Harnad <---> you yourself
> >>>>> >  liked
> >>>>> > your comments!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > It is really apparent that open access according to Harnad is
> something
> >>>>> > quite different from @ccess.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sadly, yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > We have to make absolutely clear in our @ccess article that gratis,
> >>>>> > green,
> >>>>> > even libre aren't enough for open science to happen, and that we
> want
> >>>>> > @ccess
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, I agree on Gratis and even on Libre (since the usually reliable
> >>>>> Peter Suber collaborated with Harnad on giving it that
> >>>>> doesn't-mean-anything-specific-at-all definition).  But I'm not sure
> I
> >>>>> understand your objection to Green.  While Gratis-vs.- at ccess is
> about
> >>>>> WHAT you get, surely Green-vs.-Gold is only about HOW you get it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is technically correct Mike. The problem is that very few Green
> >>>> deposition are technically CC-BY. So almost always "Green" means - a
> >>>> self-archived manuscript (of some sort) without explicit licence or
> with a
> >>>> licence that forbids re-use. So the language slips to equate Green
> with
> >>>> non-reusable.
> >>>>
> >>>> As an example of re-usable green BMC is archiving my papers in our
> repo.
> >>>> They are CC-BY in BMC - Gold. When they get into the Cambridge repo
> they
> >>>> will be Green. They may not have a licence and Cambridge - like other
> univs
> >>>> - stamps everything as non-reusable. But they could be Green CC-BY if
> people
> >>>> put the effort in.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> P.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- Mike.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> open-access mailing list
> >>>>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> >>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Peter Murray-Rust
> >>>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> >>>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> >>>> University of Cambridge
> >>>> CB2 1EW, UK
> >>>> +44-1223-763069
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> open-access mailing list
> >> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-access mailing list
> > open-access at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120504/03dd281b/attachment.html>